Malone– Meltzer Coefficients

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

Any validity to these in your experience? You take a weight lifted, divide by the coefficient and the answer is what your current weight is equivalent to what your weight lifted at 30 years old would be.


If these have validity, it tells me That I have dawdled in intermediate land when I should have moved to a program for later intermediates (45 years old, 260 ish bench, 450 + deadlift, near bodyweight press at 193 pounds, 5-10)


Quantifying age related strength loss isn't addressed by Baker's strength over 40 book. Or maybe I missed it as I skipped around. General quantification would be nice for setting realistic strength goals. for example, should an "average" over 50 male forget about a 550+ deadlift, no matter how smart or hard the training/diet?

Malone-Meltzer Age Coefficients




Age Coefficient Age Coefficient Age Coefficient
30 1 51 1.255 72 2.053
31 1.014 52 1.271 73 2.087
32 1.028 53 1.293 74 2.113
33 1.043 54 1.319 75 2.142
34 1.058 55 1.35 76 2.184
35 1.072 56 1.384 77 2.251
36 1.087 57 1.417 78 2.358
37 1.1 58 1.449 79 2.5
38 1.113 59 1.48 80 2.669
39 1.125 60 1.509 81 2.849
40 1.136 61 1.536 82 3.018
41 1.147 62 1.561 83 3.166
42 1.158 63 1.584 84 3.288
43 1.17 64 1.608 85 3.386
44 1.183 65 1.636 86 3.458
45 1.195 66 1.671 87 3.508
46 1.207 67 1.719 88 3.54
47 1.217 68 1.782 89 3.559
48 1.226 69 1.856 90 3.571
49 1.234 70 1.933
50 1.243 71 2.002

[Fiddler]

Novice / intermediate / advanced status is determined by recovery time, not by how much weight you lift.

McCullough age adjustment factor is the only one I've seen used in relation to powerlifting.

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

Novice / intermediate / advanced status is determined by recovery time, not by how much weight you lift.

McCullough age adjustment factor is the only one I've seen used in relation to powerlifting.

I read the books..got that point. But the Starting Strength definition of novice/ intermediate/advanced, in theory, is not mutually exclusive with a system that quantifies loss of strength potential with age.

[MBasic]

Novice / intermediate / advanced status is determined by recovery time, not by how much weight you lift.

The question is like a Wilks thing, except applied to age instead of BW. Has nothing to do with this ^

[Fiddler]

I read the books..got that point. But the Starting Strength definition of novice/ intermediate/advanced, in theory, is not mutually exclusive with a system that quantifies loss of strength potential with age.

True - it's also not relevant here.

Looks like Malone-Meltzer only goes up to age 50. McCulloch goes up to 90 and seems a lot more complete, plus it seems to jibe pretty closely with the pattern of records.

I use Wilks-McCulloch in the gym when competing with younger guys, because none of them are the same size or age as I am.

For my own goal setting I use the USPA Classification Standards for my age and weight, and then I look at national records for the various federations. Just as an example, I need to add 50 lbs to my total to be Master classification at 165, and if I then cut to 148, I'll be classified Elite, and will be only 20 lbs away from a national record, so that suggests that I just go ahead and get my gym total to 750 (record territory for M4a at 148), then try to hold that total while I lose the fat I need to lose to compete at 148 (I've got it to lose and still have 15% BF, according to BodPod and Dexa). Don't know whether I can do it or not, but those numbers suggest that's a feasible approach if it is attainable. In the meantime I can compete at 165 and gain experience, since I'm already very competitive there.

[bean counter]

Let's do some sample calculations using high level lifters from IPF Classic Worlds 2016:

David Ricks: 499.9 Wilks @ 56 years old
499.9 X 1.384 = 690.6 adjusted Wilks

Ernie Parkes: 316.3 Wilks @ 73 years old
316.3 X 2.087 = 660.1 adjusted Wilks

These figures are nonsensical. The best lifter from the men's open class (Sergei Fedosienko) had a Wilks of only 584.7.

A quick search suggests this coefficient was developed for weightlifting. It may be more appropriate there since I suspect power declines more sharply with age than strength, but for competitive powerlifting it seems to be junk. And maybe there's more validity for untrained populations, but if you are seriously training for strength at any age that's not who you want to be comparing yourself against.

[Fiddler]

Let's do some sample calculations using high level lifters from IPF Classic Worlds 2016:

David Ricks: 499.9 Wilks @ 56 years old
499.9 X 1.384 = 690.6 adjusted Wilks

Ernie Parkes: 316.3 Wilks @ 73 years old
316.3 X 2.087 = 660.1 adjusted Wilks

These figures are nonsensical. The best lifter from the men's open class (Sergei Fedosienko) had a Wilks of only 584.7.

A quick search suggests this coefficient was developed for weightlifting. It may be more appropriate there since I suspect power declines more sharply with age than strength, but for competitive powerlifting it seems to be junk. And maybe there's more validity for untrained populations, but if you are seriously training for strength at any age that's not who you want to be comparing yourself against.

Where did you get those numbers? I've got McCulloch age factor for 56 at 1.246, and for 73 at 1.756. Still might be a bit excessive for PL. They might well be based on weightlifting. That's why I just look at IPSA classification numbers and federation records when setting goals for myself, but when you are just in the gym with a bunch of guys, what do you do?

Master age formula

BTW, Fedosienko's Wilks at 59 KG, 762 total calculated to 660, and his highest Wilks was 679, so that looks better compared to the other two at age-adjusted 642 and 646. Maybe not so bad, eh?

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

Getting old fucking sucks

[Tom Narvaez]

No, 762 was Fedo's EQUIPPED total. That's not raw. You're looking at the wrong results.

McCulloch is worthless.

[Chris McCarthy]

Not enough data for any adjustment to be much more than an educated guess.